header-logo header-logo

Under new rule (3)

14 April 2011 / David Burrows
Issue: 7461 + 7462 / Categories: Features , Mediation , Family
printer mail-detail

In his third FPR update David Burrows looks at costs savings, case management & mediation

Few would disagree that the legal costs associated with most litigation are a blight on the finances of many of the parties involved. With family proceedings, the problem is at its most stark where, often, the parties’ means and the lawyers fees are part of the assets and liabilities over which much family litigation rages.

An argument can be advanced that the new Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010) do little to assist with costs savings. The new rules can be seen—sometimes by omission, sometimes almost deliberately—as stoking up costs: many rules lack logic and will be expensive for the judges to clarify; disclosure rules are confused and aspects of rules as to expert evidence (eg, instruction of joint experts) are deliberately more expensive than under CPR 1998.

This article, the third in the present series, looks at two particular aspects of the scheme which are central to costs saving, and which are new to

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll